This is a subject that I have wanted to write about for some time now. Many of you have heard about this method to repair your credit. Probably some of you have done it. I'm not a big fan. I heard a lot of reports about people who have used it. There have been some that have experienced success with this method and most of those were people who used it way back when it first came out. I have heard of many more people that have used it and not had near the results they were expecting or were assured that they would have. I too have used the method a couple of times for my clients but had to go back to using the methods I have used successfully for over 3 decades.
My first problem with this method is that it is only disputing with the credit bureaus. When you are going after 3rd party collections, I believe you need to protect yourself with validation demands so that you have it in place in case the collector decides to sue you. If you have demanded validation, they cannot sue unless they have validated - a task they cannot actually and lawfully succeed at because they do not have first-hand knowledge, they have no contract, and they do not have your permission to collect information and make communications about you and the alleged account. They have to get that authorization from you, in writing.
This method, the Section 609 method is bureau disputing only. It is based on a good concept that requires the credit reporting agencies to prove the verification they claim. This is a task that they NEVER do. They don't have the ability to do because they don't conduct reasonable investigations, they don't collect the documents to support the information furnished, they don't get authentic verification because verification requires sworn testimony (affidavit) accompanied with that supporting documentation. All they have is hearsay, which the courts have deemed as incompetent and inadmissible.
So, here is how it works:
You write a letter to each bureau telling them to provide the documents used to verify or that validate the following accounts. You are demanding that the send you the verifiable proof (copy of the original contract between the furnisher and you) that the FCRA requires them to have in your file. The word "file" is very important because they try to convince you that a "file" is the same thing as a credit report, but it is not.
Next, most templates have a table that has the furnisher name (creditor/collector) then the account number, then the dispute says "unverified account" in the final box of the table. One of the requirements under both Section 609 and 611 requires that information that is incomplete, inaccurate, or unverifiable be corrected or deleted. So, just above the table you tell them provide the proof for each account within 30 days or delete it as required by law.
The bottom of the letter tells them to remove all promotional non-account related inquiries and to suppress your information from promotional services - in other words, opting out. After that is the signature though some variations of this credit repair process has you get each letter notarized.
So that is the method. There are letters 2, 3 and 4. Each letter is basically the same, but the language in each consecutive letter gets stronger. The second letter tells them that it's the 2nd written request and they claim to have verified but didn't provide any documentation. You are demanding they provide you the documentation along with the name, title, contact information with the persons who they spoke to or communicated with in their "re-investigation" in order to prove to you that an actual reasonable investigation was done and they acquired the documentation proving the account was verified.
The letter reminds them again that they are required to delete unverified accounts and if they cannot provide that documentation, then it is not verified and must be removed according to Sections 609 and 611. It also reminds them of their civil liability (meaning you have the right to sue them) under FCRA 617 for willful negligence.
Once again the 3 column table is there with creditor/collection company name, account number and unverified account. You of course remove any accounts that have been removed from the report from the first dispute.
Round 3, letter 3. Almost the exact same as round 2 letter but it says it's the 3rd written request and then above the table you demand that they send the documentation or delete immediately. Again you make sure that you don't dispute any of the accounts that were removed from the first and second disputes.
Round 4. This letter is again slightly different. It has a header on it that says its a Notice of Pending Litigation Seeking Relief and Monetary Damages pursuant to FCRA Sections 616 and 617. It calls them out for not investigating, not providing documents, falsely claiming the accounts are verified but never sending the proof. It tells them the 3 previous letters they received disputing the items will be used as exhibits and evidence if they proceed to litigation as will the credit reports showing they have been disputed and claimed to verify.
This 4th letter is definitely notarized. Also, with each round of disputes you are expected to provide copies of your ID and SS card. I'm not big on that at all but for this process, it's recommended. You don't want to give the CRA's any loophole for not doing their job and following the law.
So, that is the process. I however think that you need to send validation letters to collectors and proof of claim letters to original creditors. You need to demand that they provide you with the documents used to supposedly verify the information that the furnished to the credit bureaus. You let them know that a response letter that provides a summary of the account is NOT verification, is NOT validation, is hearsay and it will be rejected because you agree with the courts that hearsay is incompetent and inadmissible.
In my follow up letters to these collectors and creditors, I call them out for not sending certified copies of original documents, sending a slew of billing statements that are NOT proof of a full accounting, not sending proof of how the account was funded and where those funds came from, proof that the account is still within the statute of limitations, proof of license and bonding to collect in the consumer's state, proof of a Power of Attorney document or written authorization showing that consumer gave their consent to collect information and make communications about the alleged account, and proof that the 3rd party collector was specifically named on any original contract showing they are entitled to collect by having an interest to protect.
I like to write bureau letters that do include Section 609, but I use many other sections of the FCRA, federal acts, code of federal regulations, case law, state statutes, UCC, and other legal ammunition. I don't like relying on just 1 main section of the FCRA. I do the same thing with my direct to creditor/collector letters. Demanding proof of claim or validation is important to protect yourself and including laws and the above legal ammunition, proper wording is important to see a higher rate of success in your credit repair journey.
I hope you will find this information helpful. If you are in need of credit repair assistance and don't feel like taking it on yourself, please contact me at futurefico@gmail.com. I may be able to assist you.
